Ag groups send COOL support letter to Vilsack

More than 220 ag and other groups have sent a letter to Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack in support of “a regulatory change to the Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) requirements for meat.”  Driven by a World Trade Organization ruling, they say the USDA should make sure that labels give consumers more information, not less – that consumers “deserve clear, direct and informative labels.”

The letter also says more than 20 STATE legislatures have bills pending that would demand more information on how food is produced to be shared on food labels for the benefit of consumers.  National Farmers Union, National Farmers Organization, National Catholic Rural Life Conference and the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition are joined by a great many state based ag, rural, faith, environmental and consumer groups in signing the letter.

The USDA’s proposed rule would require each production step of the animal be printed on the labels of muscle cuts of meat and would END the packing practice of comingling livestock “from multiple origins and label the meat from those livestock with the same label.”  The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association opposes the proposed rule.

Public comments are being taken on it through Thursday, April 11th.

 

Country of Origin Labels for meat could change at the grocery store

The USDA has revised the Country of Origin Labeling program, COOL, and its original author, US Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota, says that’s a good thing.  The proposed changes would require each production step of the animal be printed on the labels of muscle cuts of meat (but not ground meat). It also stops the packing facility practice of co-mingling livestock from multiple origins and labeling the meat from those livestock with the same label.  But what does that mean to you, the consumer?  The proposed changes would let you know where the meat came from, at each stage of production.

HEALTHY LIVING PROGRAM – Proposed meat label changes (1:30 mp3)

COOL author Tim Johnson applauds revisions

The USDA has revised the Country of Origin Labeling program, COOL, and its original author, US Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota, says that’s a good thing.  A news release from Senator Johnson and Senators Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Jon Tester of Montana praised the proposed rule that was published in the Federal Register on Tuesday. It will require each production step of the animal be printed on the labels of muscle cuts of meat. It also stops the packing facility practice of comingling livestock “from multiple origins and label the meat from those livestock with the same label.”

The proposed rule has grown out of the World Trade Organization’s finding that current COOL regulations are not up to its standards.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) says the new proposed rule will “create more problems for the U.S. beef industry” — including increased costs for processors, retailers and ultimately, for consumers.  Senator Johnson says he’s glad the USDA put forward the proposal so “Americans can be further informed about the origin of the meat they feed their families.”

The proposed amended COOL rule is open for public comment through April 11th (2013).

Missouri Cattlemen want farm bill like last years’

A final five-year farm bill, whenever it occurs, should be like the proposals that passed last year — so says Missouri Cattlemen’s Association (MCA) executive Mike Deering, who is the former communications director of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA).

Deering tells Brownfield, “Twenty-13 farm bill, 20-14, 20-15, whatever it ends up being farm bill is certainly going to be a priority. Unfortunately, we’re going to have to do what we did. We had a good working bill. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the Missouri Cattlemen’s Association were happy with both the House (Ag committee) and the Senate versions that absolutely went nowhere.”

Deering says his group’s main goal is to keep the Livestock Title out of the Farm Bill, “The Livestock Title is responsible for such things as the GIPSA rule, mandatory country-of-origin labeling. So, we want to keep the livestock title out and keep big government out of our business.”

Deering says it’s also important to keep animal rights influences out of a final bill, “We also want to work very closely with our friends at the national level to make sure that ANY animal rights groups and activist type agendas stay OUT of the farm bill.”

The Missouri Cattlemen’s Association supports Missouri House Joint Resolutions (HJR 7 & HJR 11) that were combined and passed by the Missouri House Ag committee today, proposing a constitutional amendment to affirm “the right of (people) to farm and raise livestock, hunt, fish and harvest wildlife” in adherence with state and local laws in Missouri.

 

NFU and USCA release COOL analysis

The National Farmers Union (NFU) and the United States Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) say changes to Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) legislation are not needed to comply with the recent WTO ruling on COOL.

A legal analysis released by the two groups today says the USDA can come into compliance with the World Trade Organization appeals panel by “amending the COOL regulations.”

The paper says “more information and accurate details” about the country or countries where animals are born, raised or slaughtered are needed for labeling and that won’t result in higher costs for consumers. The WTO has ruled that the current regulations regarding COOL are not up to WTO standards.

The WTO dispute panel sided with Canada and Mexico last June, ruling that the COOL regulations put their beef and pork at a disadvantage in the U.S. market, a violation of WTO rules. The US Trade Representative’s office had appealed in late 2011.

 

Iowa Pork’s new president on challenges facing the industry

The new president of the Iowa Pork Producers Association is Greg Lear of Spencer.   At Iowa Pork Congress in Des Moines, we visited with Lear about some of the big challenges facing pork producers in 2013, including feed cost and availability, the debate over gestation stalls, efforts to limit or eliminate the use of antibiotics, and COOL.

AUDIO: Greg Lear (6:18 MP3)

The egg bill, COOL and the estate tax

“A dangerous precedent.”

That’s how NCBA vice president of government affairs Colin Woodall describes that bill that would dictate the size of cages of egg-laying hens.  Woodall says that, if it were to pass, it would be the first time Congress has actually put, into statute, a production practice. 

In a Cattle Industry Convention interview, we also asked Woodall about COOL and the estate tax.

AUDIO: Colin Woodall (4:50 MP3)

 

NCBA opposed to COOL appeal

Not all groups support the position calling for the U.S. Trade Representative to defend the Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) law. Colin Woodall, V.P. of Government Affairs for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association in Washington, D.C says NCBA doesn’t understand that way of thinking.

“And right now trade as a whole is worth about $220 per marketed head, that’s money in producer’s pockets, so to threaten that we think is really shortsighted and foolish,” said Woodall. “We need to work on a program that will make sure we’re not retaliated against, but also a program that truly gives consumers the information they want and right now we have a program that does neither of those.”

Audio: Colin Woodall, NCBA (1:05 MP3)

Woodall was in Ohio on Saturday, January 28 speaking at the Ohio Cattlemen’s Association annual meeting.

Senators want appeal of WTO COOL decision

A group of U.S. Senators is asking the Obama administration to appeal a World Trade Organization (WTO) panel’s decision on Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) for meat products.

Among the 19 senators making the request is Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, who says “people want to know where the food on their tables comes from—and that makes Country of Origin Labeling a no-brainer.”

The WTO panel decision, while validating the U.S.’s authority to have COOL for meat products, strikes down the COOL regulations which implement the law.  From here, the panel decision will either be adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement body or can be appealed to the WTO Appellate Body.